...
EgyptSearch Forums Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» EgyptSearch Forums » Egyptology » Ancient Egyptian DNA from 1300BC to 426 AD (Page 5)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 25 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  ...  23  24  25   
Author Topic: Ancient Egyptian DNA from 1300BC to 426 AD
Concerned member of public
Banned
Member # 22355

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Concerned member of public   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
EEF in Middle/Late Neolithic Germans is low to negligible, yet we're expected to believe Early Neolithic Germans were overwhelmingly EEF. So these loony-tunes now are proposing some sort of "massive migration" [from yet somewhere else] between Early and Middle/Late Neolithic to explain the huge reduction of EEF (orange):

 -

A far more reasonable explanation is Stuttgart (the genome of a single individual) is not at all representative of typical Early Neolithic Germans (for whatever reason, its an outlier); perhaps EEF was always very low in northern Europe - which makes sense in light of ancient DNA from the Baltic which shows Early Neolithic Baltics were 0% EEF.

Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
Does this mean you carry predominantly R1b1* and A1b?

I took a Net Geo test and I was R-DF19 and L3b1a. It just hit me how this dawned on me that Europeans post their haplogroups in different percentiles. Even though I prefer Albino Apocalypse this is why I don't mind the term White Supremacy. But yeah I'm R1b1a21blahblahblah. Most likely I got it from my great grandfather along with my last name. He was white.

It also dawned on me that this is why DNATribe's score was low in Modern Egypt. I had to look at it from my Great Grandfather's POV.
My Tribe's Test

Does being part albino affect your thought process?
According to eugenicist and dysgenics it does.

Ask Roger Lynn and "racial scientist" cohorts.

Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
EEF in Middle/Late Neolithic Germans is low to negligible, yet we're expected to believe Early Neolithic Germans were overwhelmingly EEF. So these loony-tunes now are proposing some sort of "massive migration" [from yet somewhere else] between Early and Middle/Late Neolithic to explain the huge reduction of EEF (orange):

 -

A far more reasonable explanation is Stuttgart (the genome of a single individual) is not at all representative of typical Early Neolithic Germans (for whatever reason, its an outlier); perhaps EEF was always very low in northern Europe - which makes sense in light of ancient DNA from the Baltic which shows Early Neolithic Baltics were 0% EEF.

quote:
Was it a massive migration? Or was it rather a slow and persistent seeping of people, items and ideas that laid the foundation for the demographic map of Europe and Central Asia that we see today? The Bronze Age (about 5,000 – 3,000 years ago) was a period with large cultural upheavals. But just how these upheavals came to be have remained shrouded in mystery.

Assistant Professor Morten Allentoft from the Centre for GeoGenetics at the Natural History Museum of Denmark at the University of Copenhagen is a geneticist and is first author on the paper in Nature. He says:

- Both archaeologists and linguists have had theories about how cultures and languages have spread in our part of the world. We geneticists have now collaborated with them to publish an explanation based on a record amount of DNA-analyses of skeletons from the Bronze Age.

So far the archaeologists have been divided into two different camps. Professor Kristian Kristiansen of the University of Gothenburg, who initiated the project together with Lundbeck Foundation Professor Eske Willerslev says:

- The driving force in our study was to understand the big economical and social changes that happened at the beginning of the third millennium BC, spanning the Urals to Scandinavia. The old Neolithic farming cultures were replaced by a completely new perception of family, property and personhood. I and other archaeologists share the opinion that these changes came about as a result of massive migrations.

[...]


http://geogenetics.ku.dk/latest-news/modern-european/
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
We're going in circles.

Nah Swenet, we are making progress because you are explaining yourself. But you still aren't defining literal.


quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
As I've already pointed out, your own source (DNAconsultants) has the frequency of the Thuya and Akhenaten "genes" higher in Egypt and Somalia than anywhere else. So why even still bring up what DNAconsultant says about African Americans' frequency at this point? Why does it make sense to you to still bring up a lower frequency as evidence of what you're saying when your source says the peaks are in northeast Africa? There are southern and Central Africans in DNAconsultants' database and they are mentioned in your own quotes from DNAconsultants as having lower frequencies. So why speculate about southern and Central Africans having "much more of these genes"? This is wishful thinking.

Look at the list. Living Egyptians and Somalis have ancestry in common and the Somali, Adaima Muslims and Upper Egyptians are at the top of the list. What more is there to say? By contrast, The Ovambo and Tanzanian samples are outscored by highly admixed Egyptian Muslims from Adaima. Even though there is no non African ancestry hampering their ability to score well (as is the case in the North African samples), Ovambo and Tanzanians barely outscore the Coptic, Greek and Moroccan samples. The Somali sample outscores samples with such mediocre scores with more than a full point. Very suspect if the pharaonic alleles are supposed to match DNA that is in DNA Tribes Great Lakes and South Africa regions. There is obviously a trend in that list, which is also reflected in the fact that Thuya's and Akhenaten's "rare genes" have a completely different distribution than the "rare genes" from SSA:

Somalia is located in SSA and every mummy had a high MLI score in the horn. There are reasons why other regions have higher MLI ratings. The allele that is shared by 50% of Somalis is shared by 1/3 of African Americans. The MLI score is based not just on frequency but also on rarity, exclusivity and probably frequency of combinations. That is why I brought up African Americans. This is the same system, that with the same STRs would tell us that Keanu Reeves is east Asian and European despite being poor at discerning admixtures.

The rarest allele in Consultant’s analysis (D18S51=19) is also the most exclusive to Africa in their analysis. Then you have SSA exclusive alleles like CSF1PO=6 D7S820=6, D18S51=8, FGA=31 that are almost nonexistent in your chart or exclusively SSA.

What I mean with "literal" is that some are taking DNA Tribes as conclusive and dismiss the fact that ancient samples from North Africa will inevitably dwarf all the MLI scores. Some are also taking this as more than a comparison of pooled regions of which some are admixed beyond recognition today.

I can reproduce DNA Tribes' results to some extent. Meaning, i can totally obscure the decently scoring Upper Egyptians by pooling them with the Syrians in a 'Levantine' region. That is what DNA Tribes did. If I do that, the pooled SSA regions will rise to the top of my list, too. But would that mean my analysis accurately portrays what's going on? No. The SSA regions would simply be at the top of my list because of subjective choices I made.

As far as those alleles you're talking about. Keep researching them and post your results here when you learn more  - . I've also been researching them and I have my own ideas regarding how they fit.

Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Forty2Tribes
Member
Member # 21799

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Forty2Tribes   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
How do you reconcile such low scores though? Your highest score with the Bahamas is 2 Million. The highest average of these mummies is 326.

Your Indus valley score is 14.7, your Arabian score is 23. This is lower than the Average Horn of Africa and Sahelian score of ALL these mummies. Take a look at the low scores for the Elder lady KV35El. Her highest score is 20.87 - Your genome is more likely in Arabia than this mummy is anywhere in Africa. Your Highest European score of South Portugal is 24.72...compare that score to these mummies scores.

MLI scores are based on the individuals vs the individuals. Her 20.87 is high because its weighed against other low scores. I don't know enough about the rate of mutations and whatever people mean by genetic drift to say why these scores are so low but I suspect it has more to do with their age North Africa's lack of continuity than the that the lack of STRs. Dwarves and Khoisan are not trekking North African anymore and the Levant is not what it use to be too. If they were, North Africa and the Levant would have a higher score.

DNATribes reported in the Ramses iii results that D21S11=35 and CSFIPO=7 are infrequent outside of Africa. The Amarna have those two too. That is at least 5 genes that are exclusive or infrequent outside of SSA. Just one of those and chances are you are at least a halfrican mulatto. These are definitely discriminating markers.

Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Concerned member of public
Banned
Member # 22355

Rate Member
Icon 2 posted      Profile for Concerned member of public   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Jones, E. R., Zarina, G., Moiseyev, V., Lightfoot, E., Nigst, P. R., Manica, A., ... & Bradley, D. G. (2017). The neolithic transition in the baltic was not driven by admixture with early European farmers. Current Biology, 27(4), 576-582.

"No Anatolian farmer-related genetic admixture in Neolithic Baltic samples." 0% [Cool]

So why would EEF be high in Early Neolithic Germany, a geographical neighbour to the Baltic region, if its 0% in the Early Neolithic Baltic? What are the Early Neolithic genome samples from Germany? It appears to consist of only Stuttgart [a single individual]. http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2016/06/02/1523951113.DCSupplemental/pnas.1523951113.sapp.pdf see pp. 44-45. Hofmanova et al. 2016 What I predict is that sample is not typical at all and EEF will be very low when they get more ancient DNA. The Hofmanova study acknowledges this problem there is only one Early Neolithic sample from Germany... "To cope with issues such as unequal sample sizes, we then used a linear model (28) to fit the allele-matching profile of the target group as a mixture of that of other sampled groups." looks like hocus pocus, why not just wait for more samples?

Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
How does this chart defend or justify the use of the term "Basal Eurasian" in African populations? The point about Lazirdis and most of the other researchers defining these terms are that they do not use African populations as part of any refrence population related to EEF (because Africa is filtered out).

Even if I dropped terms like EEF and Basal Eurasian, you'd still be salty. If I dropped these terms today and said that ancient Egyptians can be partially modeled as Angel's Anatolian and Greek samples, you'd still chimp out. You're just using Lazaridis' labels as a pretext to complain.

There, I said it. Ancient Egyptians can be modeled as partly consisting of Angel's Nea Nikomedeian sample. Now what? Still going to do a butthurt conspiracy speech about Lazaridis' terminology even though I'm not even using it in the posts you're supposedly addressing?

Everyone knows that the real reason you're salty is because the data doesn't support your version of events: the supposed colonization of the Levant by fictitious farmers from Wadi Kubbaniya whose affinities you're more comfortable with.

[Roll Eyes]

Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug M
Member
Member # 7650

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Doug M     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
How does this chart defend or justify the use of the term "Basal Eurasian" in African populations? The point about Lazirdis and most of the other researchers defining these terms are that they do not use African populations as part of any refrence population related to EEF (because Africa is filtered out).

Even if dropped terms like EEF and Basal Eurasian, you'd still be salty. If I dropped these terms today and said that ancient Egyptians can be partially modeled as Angel's Anatolian and Greek samples, you'd still chimp out. You're just using Lazaridis' labels as a pretext to complain.

There, I said it. Ancient Egyptians can be modeled as partly consisting of Angel's Nea Nikomedeian sample. Now what? Still going to do a butthurt conspiracy speech about Lazaridis' terminology even though I'm not even using it in the posts you're supposedly addressing?

Everyone knows that the real reason you're salty is because the data doesn't support your version of events: the supposed colonization of the Levant by fictitious 22ky old Nile Valley farmers whose affinities you're more comfortable with.

[Roll Eyes]

Stop clowning yourself. If that is what you wanted to say then just say it. I am not one bit salty. I just don't like folks hiding behind words to pretend to mean one thing when they mean something else.

The only version of events I disagree with is the idea that African DNA lineages suddenly disappeared after migrating out of Africa or that Africans suddenly stopped migrating into nearby parts of Eurasia after OOA. That is blatantly false and this whole aspect of Basal Eurasian and EEF is the problem because it is an excuse to filter out the African data.

But according to you that is "objective" language. So why isn't it "objective" language to say that all Eurasian OOA populations were Africans up until some specific DNA lineages began to arise in Eurasia? Because at this point those models of "neanderthal mixture" as justification for splitting OOA populations in the Levant from Africa aren't holding up. And certainly if it is "objective" to skew data by hiding the African component then it is just as "objective" to model African biological history by hiding Eurasian components.... But of course you won't address that double standard.

Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
capra
Member
Member # 22737

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for capra     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
What I predict is that sample is not typical at all and EEF will be very low when they get more ancient DNA. The Hofmanova study acknowledges this problem there is only one Early Neolithic sample from Germany... looks like hocus pocus, why not just wait for more samples?

OK, this is off topic so please take it to Eupedia or Anthrogenica or something, where they will disabuse you of your near-xyyman level of ignorance on this topic. And read "Massive migrations from the steppe" for heaven's sake, catch up to 2014.
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
If that is what you wanted to say then just say it.

Doug, you're a flip flopping shape shifter. You've been ping ponging between different nonsensical pretexts and goalposts since the beginning. The first time you let me know you were salty you weren't complaining about Lazaridis' terminology per se, but geography:

quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
Now we are talking in the context of identifying populations using appropriate labels. So what does EEF imply in the context of whether a specific population is African or Non African? By its name, Early European Farmer implies a population outside of Africa. Hence the problem of using it the way it was used in the sentence

So how am I now supposedly "off the hook" now that I reprhase my wording and say the exact same thing (all I did was stop saying early European farmer [EEF] and now I'm still saying early European farmer unabbreviated)? Isn't this the point where you spam your silly geographic pretext that you supposedly had a problem with, since you're always ping ponging between pretexts?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Concerned member of public
Banned
Member # 22355

Rate Member
Icon 3 posted      Profile for Concerned member of public   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
(Pre)dynastic Egyptian samples show relatively close non-metric (and metric) dental ties to al Khiday, near Khartoum (central Sudan, on the border of Sub-Saharan Africa). The al Khiday crania are Mesolithic, or even Epipaleolithic date (at least 9000 BP, and probably older). I presume they show the same ties for craniometric.

http://meeting.physanth.org/program/2012/session21/irish-2012-population-continuity-after-all-potential-late-pleistocene-dental-ancestors-of-holocene-nubians-have-been-found.html

So the discontinuity observed in Wadi Halfa (8000-11000 BP) and Jebel Sahaba (13000 BP), mentioned in this thread is anomalous since the nearby al Khiday (9000 BP or more) crania show continuity.

Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Concerned member of public
Banned
Member # 22355

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Concerned member of public   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by capra:
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
What I predict is that sample is not typical at all and EEF will be very low when they get more ancient DNA. The Hofmanova study acknowledges this problem there is only one Early Neolithic sample from Germany... looks like hocus pocus, why not just wait for more samples?

OK, this is off topic so please take it to Eupedia or Anthrogenica or something, where they will disabuse you of your near-xyyman level of ignorance on this topic. And read "Massive migrations from the steppe" for heaven's sake, catch up to 2014.
They're trying to revive old/discredited Aryan theories that Indo-European had a big genetic impact. No thanks.

"Massive migration from the steppe was a source for Indo-European languages in Europe"
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v522/n7555/full/nature14317.html

The main people pushing this nonsense are eastern Europeans for their own self-interests, can just tell with author names on even the study you referenced.... Vayacheslav, Khartanovich, Kuznetsov, Mochalov, [Roll Eyes]

Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
capra
Member
Member # 22737

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for capra     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You could read it with due skepticism, in the same way you should read everything else. Then you would notice that there are a bunch of Neolithic German samples already and your prediction was falsified 3 years ago, dumbass.
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:
Originally posted by capra:
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
What I predict is that sample is not typical at all and EEF will be very low when they get more ancient DNA. The Hofmanova study acknowledges this problem there is only one Early Neolithic sample from Germany... looks like hocus pocus, why not just wait for more samples?

OK, this is off topic so please take it to Eupedia or Anthrogenica or something, where they will disabuse you of your near-xyyman level of ignorance on this topic. And read "Massive migrations from the steppe" for heaven's sake, catch up to 2014.
They're trying to revive old/discredited Aryan theories that Indo-European had a big genetic impact. No thanks.

"Massive migration from the steppe was a source for Indo-European languages in Europe"
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v522/n7555/full/nature14317.html

The main people pushing this nonsense are eastern Europeans for their own self-interests, can just tell with author names on even the study you referenced.... Vayacheslav, Khartanovich, Kuznetsov, Mochalov, [Roll Eyes]

Hmmm, I was in a YouTube thread. And the OP said that a lot of Bulgarians are very angry. The thread was about ancient Egypt. This was about one year ago.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944

Icon 3 posted      Profile for Tukuler   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Besides using Mota as the Basal Eurasian
genome for qpAdm, Lazaridis gives the
nrY haplogroup of each ancient Near
East DNA sample.
Some of their take on Natufian nrY
 -

We all need to study and analyze these
reports thoroughly before commenting
and drawing conclusions based on a
priora convictions and only reading
what's found via a myopic self
serving word search.

Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Concerned member of public
Banned
Member # 22355

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Concerned member of public   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by capra:
You could read it with due skepticism, in the same way you should read everything else. Then you would notice that there are a bunch of Neolithic German samples already and your prediction was falsified 3 years ago, dumbass.

LOL.

Turns out the Late Neolithic German sample with negligible EEF isn't even Late Neolithic -- no radiocarbon date (!) and could be Early.

"We also included a sample from an unusual burial at the Karsdorf site in Germany
KAR22/I0550 (feature 00191, date unknown)"

So how you going to explain that? This study supports exactly what I said, if not better.
 -
[Razz]

Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
capra
Member
Member # 22737

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for capra     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yeesh, you're as bad as xyyman and Clyde Winters, just picking out the scraps you can fit and ignoring the rest. I'm done.
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
xyyman
Member
Member # 13597

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for xyyman   Author's Homepage         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
scrappy Arnaid-Villen..........

quote:
Originally posted by capra:
Yeesh, you're as bad as xyyman and Clyde Winters, just picking out the scraps you can fit and ignoring the rest. I'm done.

HLA genes in Southern Tunisians (Ghannouch area) and their Relationship with other Mediterraneans

A. Hajjeja,

Abstract
South Tunisian HLA gene profile has studied for the first time. HLA-A, -B, -DRB1 and -DQB1 allele frequencies of Ghannouch have been compared with those of neighboring populations, other Mediterraneans and Sub-Saharans. Their relatedness has been tested by genetic distances, Neighbor-Joining dendrograms and correspondence analyses. Our HLA data show that both southern from Ghannouch and northern Tunisians are of a Berber substratum in spite of the successive incursions (particularly, the 7th–8th century A.D. Arab invasion) occurred in Tunisia. It is also the case of other North Africans and Iberians. This present study confirms the relatedness of Greeks to Sub-Saharan populations. This suggests that there was an admixture between the Greeks and Sub-Saharans probably during Pharaonic period or after natural catastrophes (dryness) occurred in Sahara.

Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Punos_Rey
Administrator
Member # 21929

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Punos_Rey   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by capra:
Yeesh, you're as bad as xyyman and Clyde Winters, just picking out the scraps you can fit and ignoring the rest. I'm done.

I'd say him, xyyman and mike are the absolute worst and I'm still not sure who's number one on the poo pile.
Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Concerned member of public
Banned
Member # 22355

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Concerned member of public   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by capra:
Yeesh, you're as bad as xyyman and Clyde Winters, just picking out the scraps you can fit and ignoring the rest. I'm done.

They label a specimen an age without even radiocarbon dating it. This is the sort of thing I look for, yes. Its pseudo-science. They already have pre-conceived ideas before writing the paper, then select an age to fit their theory (a different age of course could contradict/falsify their theory, so of course they don't choose it).

Anyway, to see how silly this paper was-

"The fact that the resurgence of hunter-gatherer ancestry occurred in several European countries raises the question of its source. It is possible that pockets of hunter-gatherers
existed in Europe long after the arrival of first farmers; their later admixture with farmer communities would account for the observed phenomenon... at present we cannot identify the source of WHG-related resurgence in any of the available genomes of WHG individuals."

That's the ridiculous dilemma they've created: "resurgence of hunter-gatherer ancestry" that they cannot even trace or find. lol.

Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clyde Winters
Member
Member # 10129

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Clyde Winters   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by xyyman:
scrappy Arnaid-Villen..........

quote:
Originally posted by capra:
Yeesh, you're as bad as xyyman and Clyde Winters, just picking out the scraps you can fit and ignoring the rest. I'm done.

HLA genes in Southern Tunisians (Ghannouch area) and their Relationship with other Mediterraneans

A. Hajjeja,

Abstract
South Tunisian HLA gene profile has studied for the first time. HLA-A, -B, -DRB1 and -DQB1 allele frequencies of Ghannouch have been compared with those of neighboring populations, other Mediterraneans and Sub-Saharans. Their relatedness has been tested by genetic distances, Neighbor-Joining dendrograms and correspondence analyses. Our HLA data show that both southern from Ghannouch and northern Tunisians are of a Berber substratum in spite of the successive incursions (particularly, the 7th–8th century A.D. Arab invasion) occurred in Tunisia. It is also the case of other North Africans and Iberians. This present study confirms the relatedness of Greeks to Sub-Saharan populations. This suggests that there was an admixture between the Greeks and Sub-Saharans probably during Pharaonic period or after natural catastrophes (dryness) occurred in Sahara.

You have to understand that most Europeans don't like HLA studies because they provide you with evidence of a positive relationship between populations.

Genetics on the otherhand can be manipulated , by researchers attempting to "identify" mutations that can specifically characterize a population.

A great example of this phenomena is the method of many researchers when they report evidence haplogroup R-M207 among Africans, later scholars flip the script. As a result, R1 samples from Africa, originally characterized as M-207, are now called R-V45 and R-V69 to continue the myth that only Europeans were carriers of R-M207.

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clyde Winters
Member
Member # 10129

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Clyde Winters   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:
Originally posted by capra:
Yeesh, you're as bad as xyyman and Clyde Winters, just picking out the scraps you can fit and ignoring the rest. I'm done.

They label a specimen an age without even radiocarbon dating it. This is the sort of thing I look for, yes. Its pseudo-science. They already have pre-conceived ideas before writing the paper, then select an age to fit their theory (a different age of course could contradict/falsify their theory, so of course they don't choose it).

Anyway, to see how silly this paper was-

"The fact that the resurgence of hunter-gatherer ancestry occurred in several European countries raises the question of its source. It is possible that pockets of hunter-gatherers
existed in Europe long after the arrival of first farmers; their later admixture with farmer communities would account for the observed phenomenon... at present we cannot identify the source of WHG-related resurgence in any of the available genomes of WHG individuals."

That's the ridiculous dilemma they've created: "resurgence of hunter-gatherer ancestry" that they cannot even trace or find. lol.

Stupid Euronut. The dating of Haplogroups is not based on radiocarbon dating. The estimates for the age of haplogroups is determined by statistical modeling--not radiocarbon dates.

As a result, if we accepted your ridiculous conclusions on how to lable the age of a speciment or haplogroup, population genetics dating of haplogroups is a "pseudo-science".

LOL. Racist Euroloon you're really dumb.

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Concerned member of public
Banned
Member # 22355

Rate Member
Icon 5 posted      Profile for Concerned member of public   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by xyyman:
[QB] scrappy Arnaid-Villen..........

Do you have any data falsifying these wild and stupid "mass immigration from steppe" claims? People posting them give the game away as soon as they try to link the magical mass influx of steppe migrants to Indo-Europeans - exactly what the 2014 study tries to do. This is Nazi nonsense - old Aryan theory of Indo-Europeans. Also, the reason it is mostly east European scientists/bloggers pushing this is because they identify the Ukrainian steppe with the Proto-Indo-European homeland. Highly dubious.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Concerned member of public
Banned
Member # 22355

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Concerned member of public   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:
Originally posted by capra:
Yeesh, you're as bad as xyyman and Clyde Winters, just picking out the scraps you can fit and ignoring the rest. I'm done.

They label a specimen an age without even radiocarbon dating it. This is the sort of thing I look for, yes. Its pseudo-science. They already have pre-conceived ideas before writing the paper, then select an age to fit their theory (a different age of course could contradict/falsify their theory, so of course they don't choose it).

Anyway, to see how silly this paper was-

"The fact that the resurgence of hunter-gatherer ancestry occurred in several European countries raises the question of its source. It is possible that pockets of hunter-gatherers
existed in Europe long after the arrival of first farmers; their later admixture with farmer communities would account for the observed phenomenon... at present we cannot identify the source of WHG-related resurgence in any of the available genomes of WHG individuals."

That's the ridiculous dilemma they've created: "resurgence of hunter-gatherer ancestry" that they cannot even trace or find. lol.

Stupid Euronut. The dating of Haplogroups is not based on radiocarbon dating. The estimates for the age of haplogroups is determined by statistical modeling--not radiocarbon dates.

As a result, if we accepted your ridiculous conclusions on how to lable the age of a speciment or haplogroup, population genetics dating of haplogroups is a "pseudo-science".

LOL. Racist Euroloon you're really dumb.

The source I posted is about the date of a skeleton, not haplogroup. They never radiocarbon dated the remains [at least not in the original study], and just guessed it was Late Neolithic, when it could be Early Neolithic. The significance of this I've already highlighted.

"We also included a sample from an unusual burial at the Karsdorf site in Germany
KAR22/I0550 (feature 00191, date unknown)."

Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Forty2Tribes
Member
Member # 21799

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Forty2Tribes   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
Does this mean you carry predominantly R1b1* and A1b?

I took a Net Geo test and I was R-DF19 and L3b1a. It just hit me how this dawned on me that Europeans post their haplogroups in different percentiles. Even though I prefer Albino Apocalypse this is why I don't mind the term White Supremacy. But yeah I'm R1b1a21blahblahblah. Most likely I got it from my great grandfather along with my last name. He was white.

It also dawned on me that this is why DNATribe's score was low in Modern Egypt. I had to look at it from my Great Grandfather's POV.
My Tribe's Test

Does being part albino affect your thought process?
Yes, but then we are all part albino.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Concerned member of public
Banned
Member # 22355

Rate Member
Icon 14 posted      Profile for Concerned member of public   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://www.continuitas.org/intro.html

I would love them to update the genetic section in response to the ancient DNA in last 5 years and they can better review/critique it than me. Unfortunately the genetic section on that website is outdated. Although, this is a good quote-

"The Neolithic farmers have certainly been important; but they have only contributed about one fifth of our genes. It is the hunters of the Paleolithic that have created the main body of modern European gene pool." (Sykes, 2001)

Also, the genetic data must be compatible with archaeology, hence there's no point in trying to revive old Aryan theories of large-scale admixture events, mass migrations, warlike invasions etc. [read the above link]

Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
xyyman
Member
Member # 13597

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for xyyman   Author's Homepage         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Quote:

"The southern Tunisians from Ghannouch, Northerns from Tunis, Algerians and Moroccans
(Eljadida) are all related to Moroccan Berbers from Souss area (Table 3) and Tunisians
Berbers (our own unpublished results). Therefore, the present-day North African populations
are not genetically different from Berbers.
In addition, Lebanese (Table 3) and Arabs
from the Arabian Peninsula [23] show bigger distances to North Africans.
This suggests
that the 7th century A.D. Arab invasion (and even the 11th century A.D. massive Bedouin
immigration) of North Africa does not deeply modify the North African genetic pool, in
contrary, they relatively kept their Berber genetic profile. It may be due to that the number
of newcomers from the Middle East was probably very low in comparison with the number
of established Berbers. Therefore, southern Tunisians have kept their Berber substratum in
spite of the successive invasions of the area
by: Phoenicians (814–146 B.C.), Romans
(146 B.C.–439 A.D.), Vandals (439–534 A.D.), Byzantines (534–647 A.D.), Arabs (since
644 A.D.), Turks (1574–1957 A.D.) and French settlement (1881–1956) [34]. Also, the
contribution of Negroid to the southern Tunisian genetic pool was low in spite of their high
number in the South of Tunisia. This may be due to cultural barriers. Indeed, The most part
of the Negroid live in small communities as those in Gabes (Mdou,Arram),Kebili, Tataouine
and Mednine; however, Arab invasions (in 7th and 11th centuries A.D.) had clearly strong
social and cultural effects. Indeed, Arabic and Islam are respectively the official language"

--------------------
Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming

Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Tukuler   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Even though they got prehistoric outside
of Africa genetics Tunisians rate unmixed
Afican stock status due to their older than
South of Sahara nry E. Maybe Mauritanians
wear the same glove.

--------------------
I'm just another point of view. What's yours? Unpublished work © 2004 - 2023 YYT al~Takruri
Authentic Africana over race-serving ethnocentricisms, Afro, Euro, or whatever.

Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Concerned member of public
Banned
Member # 22355

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Concerned member of public   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Continuity > Epipaleolithic Egyptians > Mesolithic Egyptians > Neolithic Egyptians > Ancient Egyptians

Continuity > Epipaleolithic Nubians > Mesolithic Nubians > Neolithic Nubians > Ancient Nubians

The old idea there was biological discontinuity between Epipaleolithic/Mesolithic Neolithic Nubians/Ancient Nubians is shown to be false by Irish (2016) for non-metric dental. Take a look at al Khiday:

 -

"Jebel Sahaba (JSA) is widely divergent from the 13 samples... The other early sample in this study, pre-Mesolithic al Khiday, is positioned, however, within the cluster of Neolithic (GRM) and later Nubians." (Irish, 2016 "Additional insight into post-Pleistocene Nubian population history".)

Unfortunately there's very few Upper Palaeolithic skeletons from the Sahara, but one can make an argument for even longer regional continuity in Morocco, with the Iberomaurusian sites of Taforalt and Afalou (20,000 BP). Irish (2000) shows "a relationship between the Iberomaurusians, particularly those from Taforalt, and later Maghreb and other North African samples." ("The Iberomaurusian Enigma: North African Progenitor or Dead End?" - the PDF is free to read on ResearchGate). Anthropologists like Denise Ferembach showed continuity from Jebel Irhoud (150,000 BP) > Dar es-Soltan (80,000 BP) > Iberomaurusians (20,000 BP). Multiregionalism in Africa... [Wink]

Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This remains ironic..

quote:


We compared GD13a with a number of other ancient genomes and modern populations6,15–27, using principal component analysis (PCA)28, ADMIXTURE29 and outgroup f3 statistics30 (Fig. 1). GD13a did not cluster with any other early Neolithic individual from Eurasia in any of the analyses. ADMIXTURE and outgroup f3 statistics identi ed Caucasus Hunter-Gatherers of Western Georgia, just north of the Zagros mountains, as the group genetically most similar to GD13a (Fig. 1B,C), whilst PCA also revealed some a nity with modern Central South Asian populations such as Balochi, Makrani and Brahui (Fig. 1A and Fig. S4). Also genetically close to GD13a were ancient samples from Steppe populations (Yamanya & Afanasievo) that were part of one or more Bronze age migrations into Europe, as well as early Bronze age cultures in that continent (Corded Ware)16,21, in line with previous relationships observed for the Caucasus Hunter-Gatherers24.

--M. Gallego-Llorente et al.

The genetics of an early Neolithic
pastoralist from the Zagros, Iran

Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug M
Member
Member # 7650

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Doug M     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
If that is what you wanted to say then just say it.

Doug, you're a flip flopping shape shifter. You've been ping ponging between different nonsensical pretexts and goalposts since the beginning. The first time you let me know you were salty you weren't complaining about Lazaridis' terminology per se, but geography:

quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
Now we are talking in the context of identifying populations using appropriate labels. So what does EEF imply in the context of whether a specific population is African or Non African? By its name, Early European Farmer implies a population outside of Africa. Hence the problem of using it the way it was used in the sentence

So how am I now supposedly "off the hook" now that I reprhase my wording and say the exact same thing (all I did was stop saying early European farmer [EEF] and now I'm still saying early European farmer unabbreviated)? Isn't this the point where you spam your silly geographic pretext that you supposedly had a problem with, since you're always ping ponging between pretexts?

Come on stop trying so hard to salvage a win. The terminology and the way some folks are trying so hard to fit it into an African context is bogus. I was never speaking of any specific charts or graphs because that is your typical tactic of trying to dodge rather than address the point.

And your absurd claim that markers are neither African or Eurasian is simply you trying to avoid using the term African in its proper context.

Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I am not devoted Wiki reader or attendee, but this is certainly interesting:


quote:
The name Balochistan is generally believed to derive from that of the Baloch people,[5] but this is not certain. The term "Baloch" does not appear in pre-Islamic sources. It is likely that the Balochs were known by some other name at their place of origin and acquired the name "Baloch" after arriving in Balochistan sometime in the 10th century.[7] The Suffix "-stān" is a Persian word meaning "place".

Johan Hansman relates the term "Baloch" to Meluḫḫa, the name by which the Indus Valley Civilisation is believed to have been known to the Sumerians (2900–2350 BC) and Akkadians (2334–2154 BC) in Mesopatamia.[8] Meluḫḫa disappears from the Mesopotamian records at the beginning of the second millennium B.C.[9] However, Hansman states that a trace of it in a modified form, as Baluḫḫu, was retained in the names of products imported by the Assyrians (911–605 BC).[10] Al-Muqaddasī (985 AD), who visited the capital of Makran Bannajbur, states that it was populated by people called Balūṣī (Baluchi), leading Hansman to postulate "Baluch" as a modification of Meluḫḫa and Baluḫḫu.[11]


Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
xyyman
Member
Member # 13597

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for xyyman   Author's Homepage         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
To the newbies who are trying to glue the pieces together. This chart tells the story I have trying to tell over 5 years now. I thought I was alone on this. I knew Sergi, Coon, DNATribes, etc got my back. But I did not know about this guy, Arnaiz-Villen until recently. He was vilified because of his stance. Now we know that he and I are correct. Along with Sergi and others.

1. Sub-Saharan Africans is responsible for the inception of Western Civilization. Incredible as it may seem.
2. The chart shows SSA travelling along the Nile creating ancient Egypt and then unto Greece.
3. It proves the Nile was indeed a barrier as many genetic reports has shown. Populations to the West and East of the Nile being distinct yet similar. (bifurcation).
4. That explains why Rameses III and Man E are E1b1a.
5. It also shows that West Africans are NEW to West Africa. That also explains why West Africans are 3rd closest to AEians. West Africans only RECENTLY migrated from East Africa to West Africa.
6. I wouldn't be surprised to find high frequency of West African genomes in ancient Greeks when they finally starting releasing the data....if they ever do
7. As the recently leaked symposium screen shots show there is virtually "no" Maghrebian and European influence in AEian Egypt Middle Kingdom population. The mtDNA make-up is exactly where it should be. Great Lake Africans Like Kenyans and Sudanese with some Somalians mixed in.
8. Some of you may remember my thread on aDNA on Armenians(see ESR) titled "There goes the neighborhood-Armenoids....". The Author suggesting that the migration of SSA in Armenia resulted in civilization. Seriously!!! I did not make that up. The appearance of SSA genomes coincided with civilization in Armenia and also of course Greece. Go figure.

Remember modern Europeans are as much as 80% Sub-Saharan Africans at K2. Rosenberg et al and Lazaridis et al. So under the skin...and hair. Modern Europeans are more African than non-African.

So the question is what happened ? Did these SSA people got absorbed or did they "morph". Plasticity?! What happened to these Africans. I always said the only explanation is plasticity. Humans adapting RAPIDLY to their new environment.

All this tells us is there is no such thing as ....."race" . Africans morphing and adapting. I read one recent study where they show the rate of adaptation/morping has increased tremendously over the last 1000years.


 -

Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Concerned member of public
Banned
Member # 22355

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Concerned member of public   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
@ Xyman

Arnaiz-Villena et al only used a handful of genetic markers and analysed them individually.

Apparently you didn't look at his work, which has Japanese very close to certain Sub-Saharan African populations. This shows why single-locus genetic markers are useless to determine overall genetic relatedness:

"Using results from the analysis of a single marker, particularly one likely to have undergone selection, for the purpose of reconstructing genealogies is unreliable and unacceptable practice in population genetics. The limitations are made evident by the authors’ extraordinary observations that Greeks are very similar to Ethiopians and east Africans but very distant from other south Europeans; and that the Japanese are nearly identical to west and south Africans." (Risch N, Piazza A, Cavalli-Sforza LL [2002]. "Dropped genetics paper lacked scientific merit". Nature. 415 (6868): 115)

 -

Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by xyyman:

7. As the recently leaked symposium screen shots show there is virtually "no" Maghrebian and European influence in AEian Egypt Middle Kingdom population. The mtDNA make-up is exactly where it should be. Great Lake Africans Like Kenyans and Sudanese with some Somalians mixed in.

 -

But xyyman, this says Near East not Great Lakes

Posts: 42937 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by xyyman:
4. That explains why Rameses III and Man E are E1b1a.

Very well observed.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Concerned member of public
Banned
Member # 22355

Rate Member
Icon 14 posted      Profile for Concerned member of public   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What did I say????!!!!!!!

http://www.cairoscene.com/Buzz/National-Geographic-s-DNA-Analysis-Proves-Egyptians-Are-Only-17-Arab
http://www.egyptindependent.com/news/dna-analysis-proves-egyptians-are-not-arabs

"According to the project's calculations, the majority of Egyptian DNA is comprised of 68% North African genes."

Who missed this? Its in the news in Jan. 2017.

"National Geographic's DNA Analysis Concludes that Egyptians are Only 17% Arab"

Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
xyyman
Member
Member # 13597

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for xyyman   Author's Homepage         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
@Cass. You seem like a knowledgeable young man. You have an excellent recollection memory. But you need to show sign of intelligence. This is reflected in your analytical ability. Don't you get it. Arnaiz-Villen was correct. San has a large proportion of "Mongoloid" ancestry . He was correct. South Africans are heavily admix with Khoi-San. Are you not keeping up? Remember the meta-population that left Africa are closely related to Onge and Andamans who regardless of what they look like are Asians. Genetically these "negros" are Asians. As many DNA charts have shown, like DNATribes, the closest African population to Asians are.....you guessed it...San. Come on man! Think!!!!

Arnaiz-Villen was correct. He was laughed at and ridiculed but DNATribes has shown he was correct 15 years later. "Visuals" are deceptive.

--------------------
Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming

Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by xyyman:
As many DNA charts have shown, like DNATribes, the closest African population to Asians are.....you guessed it...San. Come on man! Think!!!!


^ he made that up, there are no such charts
Posts: 42937 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
xyyman
Member
Member # 13597

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for xyyman   Author's Homepage         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I haven't seen the full Study but according to Davidski when I challenged him on this he stated that the authors based the LABEL "Near East" on SNP and NOT mtDNA Haplogroups. I have to see full report to confirm. The reason Davidski backed-off using haplogroups because these"leaked" mtDNA Haplgroups are African(primarily of the Great lakes). So as I said. These haplgroups are exactly where they should be. M1, T, etc are all African. No "European" haplogroup was found. Nein! You do know how haplogoroups are transmitted?


quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by xyyman:

7. As the recently leaked symposium screen shots show there is virtually "no" Maghrebian and European influence in AEian Egypt Middle Kingdom population. The mtDNA make-up is exactly where it should be. Great Lake Africans Like Kenyans and Sudanese with some Somalians mixed in.

 -

But xyyman, this says Near East not Great Lakes


Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
xyyman
Member
Member # 13597

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for xyyman   Author's Homepage         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No I didn't and you know it, since you have excellent data mining skills you know it. Lol! I posted the chart many times. Pull the DNATribes Digest showing (5 continental clusters). In Africa Khoi-San has the highest frequency of "Asian" ancestry showing even Native American Ancestry. Berbers also has high frequency showing their old age in Africa. YRI has virtual none. What do you think, Native Americans "back-migrated" to the Kalahari desert of Africa? Lol!


quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by xyyman:
As many DNA charts have shown, like DNATribes, the closest African population to Asians are.....you guessed it...San. Come on man! Think!!!!


^ he made that up, there are no such charts

Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
xyyman
Member
Member # 13597

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for xyyman   Author's Homepage         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Come on Cass. I know you are now getting your head and hands around genetics. This is not news and it is not what you think. Several studies have come out in the past years and was discussed here that modern Egyptians are ~80-20 Native Africans vs foreign Turks. When they say Arabs they mean Turks not Bedouins the true Arabs. . The argument was about WHEN did the admixture occur. IIRC the author stated 1300AD. My argument to board members here was 1300AD was the start of the Ottoman Empire and NOT the inception of Islam. I contend Islam is an indigenous "religion" of Africa and Europe going back to pre-history. Why? Several reasons. The Islamic custom is discovered in Europe BEFORE the birth of "Mohammed". Based upon archeology. Sources cited. In addition, there is virtually no genetic evidence the Moors were expelled from Spain. Nein! Sources cited already.

So I agree with Arnaiz-Villen. The peoples of the circum-mediterenean occupied both sides of the Sea since pre-history who were new African migrants to Europe. Bringing their culture, dogs, cattle, pigs and even asses. Don't believe me? Read upon on the origins of the European cattle, dogs, pigs and jackass. Lol! I got this covered.


quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
What did I say????!!!!!!!

http://www.cairoscene.com/Buzz/National-Geographic-s-DNA-Analysis-Proves-Egyptians-Are-Only-17-Arab
http://www.egyptindependent.com/news/dna-analysis-proves-egyptians-are-not-arabs

"According to the project's calculations, the majority of Egyptian DNA is comprised of 68% North African genes."

Who missed this? Its in the news in Jan. 2017.

"National Geographic's DNA Analysis Concludes that Egyptians are Only 17% Arab"


Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Concerned member of public
Banned
Member # 22355

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Concerned member of public   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
We don't yet have Mycenaean autosomal DNA. However, we have some forensic facial reconstructions from Mycenae Grave Circle B. This is what they looked like-

 -

As a crude analysis, none of these people look "Negroid", but "Caucasoid", although there appears quite a lot of facial diversity in them.

Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
xyyman
Member
Member # 13597

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for xyyman   Author's Homepage         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You still don't get it do you? I have no idea what a Kakazoid is. There is no race. I don't believe in race because all "features" found IN Africa originated IN Africa. ALL OF THEM. Even the White skin is African. Shriver et al and Mathieson et al. So why Are you telling me about Kakazoid and negroids? Take that someplace else. I don't argue pictures and respond to spams.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
xyyman
Member
Member # 13597

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for xyyman   Author's Homepage         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Btw - you know facial "reconstruction" is very subjective. Why? Look at the NUMEROUS facial reconstruction of TUt that is floating around. It is all in the artist head and political and historical perception. Show me what is under the skin....the DNA ....then we can have a discussion.

--------------------
Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming

Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
What did I say????!!!!!!!

http://www.cairoscene.com/Buzz/National-Geographic-s-DNA-Analysis-Proves-Egyptians-Are-Only-17-Arab
http://www.egyptindependent.com/news/dna-analysis-proves-egyptians-are-not-arabs

"According to the project's calculations, the majority of Egyptian DNA is comprised of 68% North African genes."

Who missed this? Its in the news in Jan. 2017.

"National Geographic's DNA Analysis Concludes that Egyptians are Only 17% Arab"

I can't recall you saying any if this.


 -


But what the pie shows is what we have been talking about on Egyptsearch. Indigenous Africans with admixture. And the more to the South the lesser.

Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^ Reference Populations – Geno 2.0 Next Generation


quote:
This reference population is based on native Egyptians. As ancient populations first migrated from Africa, they passed first through northeast Africa to southwest Asia. The Northern Africa and Arabian components in Egypt are representative of that ancient migratory route, as well as later migrations from the Fertile Crescent back into Africa with the spread of agriculture over the past 10,000 years, and migrations in the seventh century with the spread of Islam from the Arabian Peninsula. The East African component likely reflects localized movement up the navigable Nile River, while the Southern Europe and Asia Minor components reflect the geographic and historical role of Egypt as a historical player in the economic and cultural growth across the Mediterranean region.


https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/reference-populations-next-gen/
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Concerned member of public
Banned
Member # 22355

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Concerned member of public   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
@ Xyman

I don't think all genetic/phenotypic traits originated in East Africa, but the majority of them. Why? More people = more mutations; East Africa throughout the Miocene and Pleistocene (until around 20 kya) had the largest human population-size. Afrocentrists/OOA theorists argue the fact East Africans (or more broadly Sub-Saharan Africans) have the most genetic diversity is because humans originated there. However, it can alternatively be explained by larger population size, without humans originating there:

quote:
Higher Genetic Variation in Africa

The rapid development of DNA markers since the 1980s has led to the discovery that there is more genetic diversity in sub-Saharan Africa than in other geographic regions of the world (Relethford, 2001, 2008; Jobling et al., 2004; Tishkoff and Gonder, 2007). This observation was not seen in earlier genetic studies that relied on red blood cell polymorphisms, most likely because of ascertainment bias where most genetic variants were looked for, and detected, in European samples. The consistent higher levels of DNA diversity in African samples suggest that it is a function of the primarily African origin of our species. Again, multiple demographic histories can affect differences in genetic diversity, which is a function (for neutral markers) of mutation, population size, and elapsed time. Higher levels of African diversity are expected under a model where modern humans existed for many millennia before dispersing out of Africa. The longer a population exists, the more mutations are accumulated, and the higher the level of genetic diversity. Under a model of an out-of-Africa bottleneck, diversity would be initially reduced (because of founder effect) in the non- African populations. A bottleneck also fits the observation that the DNA diversity outside of Africa is most often a subset of the diversity found within Africa (Tishkoff and Gonder, 2007), showing that a number of alleles were lost due to genetic drift during a bottleneck.

Another possibility is that Africa has had a larger effective population size for most of the time span of modern humans, and as such has experienced less genetic drift than smaller populations outside of Africa (Relethford and Harpending, 1994; Relethford and Jorde, 1999). A larger effective population size could simply reflect greater population density and  numbers of populations, consistent with ecological and archaeological inference (Eller et al., 2004).

- Relethford, 2013

As I said in my own thread a few days ago: there's nothing falsifying a non-African origin of humans as long as it is recognised East Africa (or broadly Sub-Saharan Africa) had the largest population throughout nearly all of human evolution. This upsets some dogmatic/political Out-of-Africa proponents - there is an alternative model to them that explains the genetic facts.

Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Concerned member of public
Banned
Member # 22355

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Concerned member of public   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:

But what the pie shows is what we have been talking about on Egyptsearch. Indigenous Africans with admixture. And the more to the South the lesser. [/QB]

Except the 68% is calculated for the whole of Egypt since they're using samples from all over the country. Presumably Lower Egyptians would be somewhat lower (60%), and Upper Egyptians somewhat higher (75%). Afrocentrists were never arguing for as high as 60% genetic continuity in Lower Egypt. Just go read Zaharan, Amun Ra's etc posts. They were spamming a study at one point arguing modern Egyptians are only 20% North African (based on a limited sample) and they made dozens of posts on "cosmopolitan Lower Egypt" arguing for virtually no to minimal continuity there, but a massive influx of foreigners, population-replacement or large-scale mixing.

The reason Afrocentrists are/were (since they've now been falsified) saying modern Egyptians, mostly Lower Egyptians are non-native, is because many Lower Egyptians don't look "black" - these lighter skinned predominant "Caucasoid"-looking peoples pose a problem to their political "Black Egypt" theory, hence they tried to exclude them.

Middle/Lower Egyptian Copts -

 -

Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
xyyman
Member
Member # 13597

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for xyyman   Author's Homepage         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Young man! Cass. I am starting to sound like a broken record but this is not too difficult to understand. Just put aside your racialist beliefs for a minute. Based upon the CURRENT genetic evidence ALL modern Humans originated in Africa. The regional Theory is Dead. There were essentially TWO major migration events. First, the initial OOA and second the Neolithic Migration. The time period of the initial OOA can be contested. I speculate it is about 40-50000years ago. Some say 100,000ya. The second migratory evident was about 6-10000years ago. I also believe between the Bronze and medieval age there was tremendous political upheaval and NOT migratory events which led to the dominance of R1b-M269. There was NO migration from the Steppes of Asia. R1b-M269 is indigenous to Western Africa and Western Europe. The question is why the sudden dominance. Within 500years. If you know genetics you know that not even the Vikings carried typical European DNA.....At least the few that were tested.

--------------------
Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming

Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 25 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  ...  23  24  25   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | EgyptSearch!

(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3